tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5408901926264824281.post8355458858536533033..comments2023-10-08T07:04:38.239-07:00Comments on Philosophical Orthodoxy: Some Notes on Galatians 3Ian Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282472629069770070noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5408901926264824281.post-68368853623443241922013-06-05T21:17:52.091-07:002013-06-05T21:17:52.091-07:00Er, no, I don't think Paul was wrong; I'm ...Er, no, I don't think Paul was wrong; I'm not sure why you would think that I think that. You don't seem to even have read my post since you're making comments on a different chapter of Galatians than the one I covered. <br />As far as Paul's use of Hagar and Sarah are concerned, you seem to have completely missed the point that it is in fact an allegory, not an interpretation of the text. Paul does not think that the Jews are literally descended from Hagar and the Gentiles from Sarah, nor is he trying to use the story as a proof - it is an illustration of his views, not an attempt to foist this off as the one true interpretation of the Genesis passage. Again, he is USING it to allegorically make his point. <br />As far as "proof-texting" is concerned, I couldn't disagree more. When Paul quotes a text, there are a number of things to keep in mind: Paul, in giving Scriptural quotes could be up to a number of things; he could be using it as an illustration and not interpreting it, he could be using the words with his own meaning without intending this to be an interpretation of the text itself, he could be using the text in conjunction with other beliefs and principles to derive something else without explicitly stating those other beliefs and principles (and hence, again, is NOT in fact giving an interpretation of the text itself), as in many NT quotes of Scripture he may in fact have in mind the wider passage from which it is drawn and hence is not in fact offering an interpretation of that verse he quotes alone but rather is drawing from the whole passage, he may be abstracting some principle from the specifics of the verse at hand rather than interpreting it, etc. I think once you actually take into the account the very large variety of what Paul or any other writer may be doing when quoting from Scripture rather than simply assuming without argument that they must be offering what they believe to be THE interpretation of that single quote in isolation without any other input, etc., then Paul turns out to actually be a fairly good exegete of Scripture. Oh, and I don't think Paul has any rants against the Law - you are reading him wrong. Paul is not against the Law. This may be why you think his interpretations are silly. That and you seem to think everything he says about Scripture is an interpretation. Sorry, as a Christian, I actually like and respect Paul and in fact agree with him. My academic studies have only confirmed his amazing acumen in dealing with Scriptures rather than showing them or him to be poor or silly. I realize you might not agree with any of this and I have not argued here for my own viewpoint but hopefully you can understand why I disagree with most of what you said in your comment.Ian Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282472629069770070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5408901926264824281.post-36199758902739685342013-06-04T15:15:58.556-07:002013-06-04T15:15:58.556-07:00Just admit what you really think: Paul was wrong.
...Just admit what you really think: Paul was wrong.<br /><br />After all, the Jews did not descend from Hagar and the Gentiles did not descend from Sarah. But the Muslims, taking Paul literally, actually believe the Jews descended from Hagar and the Ishmaelites from Sarah! Its one reason they hate Jews. Paul's "allegory" (really a complete reversal of the literal text) is only good for fomenting anti-semitism. <b>It can't prove the point that Paul is trying to make because the objection is always at hand 'Paul, you reversed the text: that's not a valid interpretation.'</b> The same can often be said of Paul's proof-texting: he hardly ever gets a text right. We can always say, 'no, that's not what that passage means, Paul.' When he gets off on his rants against the Law, his interpretations get even sillier. Poor silly Paul.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16372463300223880001noreply@blogger.com